Thanks, Kelby, for bringing this up – this is America! I want to have the freedom of choosing the provider(s) as well as the videophone device. I believe I should not be controlled by any commericial provider to choose. I have my right to choose what I want. I will not be confused because I know which provider and which device to choose. I do not like such scare tactics that we will be confused or may face the issues of not receiving the call from the emergency services provider. Please oppose the petition Sorenson has submitted to the FCC.
May I have a link to the petition that was filed to FCC? I want to read this petition first before I can make a comment. I do not want to be treated differently and don’t want to be limited to one provider. Confused is the poorest excuse that I ever had heard!
Again, if hear people have more than one phone and more than one phone number per household, then deafing people should have the same.
Since Sorenson is the only manufacturer of videophones using obsolete H.323 technology that require configurations of routers and the only company that owns ALL videophones (VP100/200) that are being loaned only to people with hear disabilities, I consider their filing as an effort to protect their investments on obsolete videophones at the expense of consumers.
I feel that that petition is unreasonable because we shouldn’t be treated differently. In my house, I have two wireless providers for cellphones and internet – ATT and Sprint – and I don’t see why there must be one provider. I don’t think that having many providers is an safety issue and if it’s the case, how can this argument be refuted: if one provider’s operating system or product is down and there’s no other provider to contact for emergency? It makes sense to have several providers just in case one provider is down and it’s for safety reasons.
I just watched your video about one company limiting to one provider per location. I strongly disagree with that. I have telephone services with Comcast and Skype for my children (they are hearing). I think that this is a petition that the company have made just to force us to choose one so they can get all the funds from the FCC. I use two different providers here at home because their services satisfy my needs with the VP in different scenarios.
Every customer has every right to choose any VRS provider as long as they can have more than one VP in their homes just like the hearing people do such as more than one VoIP which could be for business, residence and even teenagers who may want their own phones with different phone numbers, cellphones, so on. Deaf customers should have their own choices as the hearing customers. Deaf people do have their own home business, residence and even their teenagers who want their own phones and phone numbers assigned to their phones.
If FCC demands that we’re limited to one provider and one phone number, what should we do about TDD? Do we throw it away? No…some want to keep TDD in any case of emergency.
With the confusing language in the Sorenson petition, I wondered if the FCC would understand its implications for the deaf community fully. Sorenson, being the biggest provider, would probably be given the most weight.
If hearing people can have a landline phone, a fax machine, a cell phone and a PDA all with different numbers, so should deaf people.
However, Sorenson seems to be saying that different providers are giving different numbers but all are going to ring on the same hardware, their vp100 and vp200? Is this what they are objecting to?
Sorenson is also saying that competitors installing hardware (such as routers and wireless systems) for their equipment are converting Sorenson equipment to their services.
That would be a violation of the first principle: that we have a choice of providers per piece of equipment.
Sorenson is also saying that a single IP address should have only one provider and hints that allowing a second provider of video interpreting would disable options on their equipment. I would like more specific information on both of these allegations.
Uncertainty and controversy among the VP providers and VRS services is costing me money. I am keeping a landline, a fax, two IP numbers, two handhelds, two VPs and a collection of several different numbers, while waiting for better information so that my household can cut down on the unnecessary stuff. Soon as I know what is reliable and a best fit, I’m printing up new cards for my business and going with that.
Kelby,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The petition submitted by Sorenson is very disconcerting. It supersedes our rights as a consumer to choose from any providers, especially with the products that were purchased.
The argument presented in the petition is frivolous. Is there any method for consumers to submit their concerns to FCC regarding the petition? If so, could you please post the link?
After I read the petition, I understand Sorenson’s interpretation of FCC’s rule, but I do not like the idea that if a consumer has only one IP address, then that address can be only used by one VRS provider. I understand that one IP address is set up to be routed to an emergency center and that a second VRS provider could change that route. This is where Sorenson petitions, but my question is how we resolve this issue? A majority of customers have one IP address and they cannot afford to pay other $50.00 a month for 2nd IP address. How do we decide which VRS provider is the default provider for one IP address? This could cause a SERIOUS problem if we decide which VRS provider is the default provider. I do not support the idea of one VRS provider, but we do need to address the problem I stated above. Another question – if we have a VP 200 device and MVP but both use the same IP address, will my 911 call automatically send my location information regardless of devices I use? If this is possible, then Sorenson’s argument on public safety has no merits.
Greetings Kelly, would you please provide the link in reference to the petition. I just spoke to Sorenson VRS Tech who promised me that Sorenson Communications is currently working with all the appropriate legal agencies to eliminate this fraudulent activity. Now the afterschock, I wonder if I’m being confused or misguided? Comments/Questions are welcome.
All, appreciate all those comments and feedback. Keep them coming. Your views and stories are helpful in helping us better understand this issue. A reminder for those of you who want more information, you can read the original filing.
In response to specific questions:
John: the device will communicate with the provider the caller’s location (assuming the caller has registered its geographical address). One way to improve chances of that happening is to ensure that Caller ID is not hidden. See http://www.purple.us/blog/2009/08/caller-id/ for more information. Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with you that people should not be required to pay for a second IP address.
Plumie and Dazed: I agree with you that people should read the filing themselves. That is why I included a link to the document immediately below the the video. What do you think of their arguments that there should be one provider per geographical location?
Margie: You and others can make your views known by going to the FCC Electronic Comment form at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and type the number 03-123 under “1. Proceeding.” Complete all other required information boxes. Scroll down to the section for typing your comments.
I saw your blog on caller ID issue and I have a comment/question for you. I agree that it’s helpful to have Caller ID on all ITRS devices so that way consumers know where a call comes from. Since a VP 200 device has a geographical information for emergency purposes, should it be allowed to be transmitted to a VRS operator if a consumer uses another VRS provider? I could argue that a VP 200 device should not be designed to prevent consumers to use other VRS providers and share their geographical information. If FCC has a rule that a VP 200 device cannot ban consumers from adding VRS providers to its contact list, then that device cannot be designed to prevent consumers to share its geographical information if they do not use the default provider. So, the design of that device may endanger the safety of deaf consumers. I am trying to think of other non-VRS devices that must follow design specifications in order to allow companies to use them to provide services, but I can’t think of one at this moment.
I disagree with this “one provider per household” rule. Should that rule be enforced, I would choose ConvoRelay or Viable! This haggling from hearing people taking advantage of the Deaf people needs have gone far enough and needs to stop. The one reason I disagree with this rule is mainly because whenever I call a VRS to make a call, sometimes I have to wait a long, looooong time for an interpreter. This is not accessible if we are stuck with one provider who isn’t taking calls fast enough!! This is not acceptable if we Deaf have to wait to make a call when hearing people can call immediately. If I had to wait for a video interpreter, I would hang up and switch to another VRS and see if they can take my call faster. Most of the time it worked! Another reason I disagree with the “one provider per household” rule, it is the quality of video interpreters. When I need to make quick calls, I would use Sorenson because of the quality of interpreting. If I need to call the bank or do legal kinds of VRS calls, I would pick Z or Purple. But because of politics, the lack of Deaf roles in admin positions and the lack of respect for Deaf within the VRS companies, I am seriously considering switching to using both ConvoRelay and Viable for good to support Deaf-run business. It is all about being a Deaf responsible consumer!
Should FCC approve this petition and require one VRS per household, then feel it would be fair in return for the Deaf consumers to demand FCC to make ALL VRS companies to follow the rule their interpreters *MUST* be RID-certified NIC Advanced!
First of all, I still DO NOT have a videophone so far or never have it. *sigh* (please read the whole posting, thanks).
I notice that too many deaf people have multiple videophones from various VRS companies
and never used some of them. Why don’t I have the videophone from some deaf individual or loan it to me for temporary use. My understanding is the current policy among the VRS companies ban that kind of practice for any VRS customer to loan the VP device to someone deaf, who truly needs it pretty much.
AFTER reading the Sorenson’s petition to the FCC (Thanks to Amy Cohen Efron for pointing out about any enclosed link after Mr. Brick notifed about the link below the video – kinda overlooked the link in the first place).
I must say that the Sorenson VRS company is attempting to engage in the monoplistic practice to squash other VRS competitors as a clear violation of the anti-trust federal law
with this petition in sleath agenda of pushing other VRS competitors out of the way.
Some commentators make a good point about another household member’s preference of company provider (cable, online) while the head of household member use the current service.
For example, the housemates or household have their own seperate direct ISP services for personal and business communication purpose, then have their needs for seperate IOPA lines, etc.
I though that the VRS services discourage the VRS users from using the VP call for an emergency call. I was really gotten confused.
With no question, I oppose the petition that creates a monopoly or anything less/different from American as well as Hearing. In other words, if a hearing is not limited to 1 in his house need, why not us? Morever, every Deaf has a human right to choose his taste, why us stick with a single taste under same house?
My opinion is here. And then what? Advise us on next step to order FCC NOT to recognize the petition.
I am going to share this issue with DVTV subscribers this evening and I’d be interested in finding out what they think of this. My screenname at DVTV is jpviews.
I disagree with limiting deaf people to one VRS provider. Where is the support for deaf community? I mean, we, deaf people, understood the feeling of having limiting ourselves by hearing society such as lack of job opportunities, equal communication access, etc, etc. We need to break barriers of limit to deaf people. We have VRS that broke our communication barrier but why do we need a greedy VRS to limit us to one provider? We all know that Sorenson is big “octopus” company but we should give other VRS companies a chance to grow. Don’t we all love competition among companies which one of them finally develop a better product than other. I have not seen Sorenson make new products since VP200 and they have not upgrade to Envision SL program since for more than five years. I saw Viable make new ones, Purple make new ones, SnapVRS make new ones…what is Sorenson doing? Collecting money and do nothing to make new changes.
Relay interoperability should be denied for persons who got their videophones for free. Teach them a lesson to pay up.
Relay interoperability should be granted for persons who paid for their videophones. Reward them for being empowered.
I don’t care if this means additional workers to ensure databases recognize the above considerations. Where’s the MVP?
Additionally, the FCC should list relay providers in violation of speed of answering protocols. If Sorenson is found to be violating standards related to speed of answering then people who received their videophones for free can change their default provider from Sorenson to any other strictly under compliance with speed of answering.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Just curious; can laypeople comment on this Sorenson petition with the FCC? (i.e., similar to a rulemaking process where public comments are invited, etc.)
If the FCC grants this petition, videophone equipment innovation could be stifled. OTOH, the Sorenson dominance in the videophone market could actually shrink as there are superior alternatives to the aging VP-100/200 line. Deaf consumers would switch to these alternatives in order to comply with the petition. Reminds me of the quote, “Don’t ask for what you wish for; you might as well as get it!” Or something like that.
Regardless, the FCC should view this petition in the prism of consumer choice, and tailor their decision on the Sorenson petition accordingly.
With me being an anti-Sorenson guy for years because of their questionable practices in the past and still continues, I was ready to jump on the bandwagon and give them a bashing once again. However, I knew I should read the petition first before blindly jumping onto another bandwagon. This words are my own and are my thoughts only and do not expect you to automatically assume that it is accurate but this is how I see it for myself.
Now I am no legal expert, and I only quickly skimmed through the petition due to time limitations on my part. What I’d like is a further clarification on this. Cuz from what I saw here, it is basically saying one “telephone number” per household (more specifically per IP address) and I can understand that cuz even before the internet came around, if you wanted to have two telephone numbers, you were required to have two separate telephone lines. I would imagine the same should apply here when it comes to IP addresses.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.
Now this is not to say that you are absolutely stuck with the provider that gave you the VP. For example, if you have the Sorenson VP100 or VP200 and you do not want them to become your primary provider, you can simply tell them that you don’t want them as your primary provider and that you want another provider, you can have that same telephone number switched over to that other provider of your choice. For example if you had this number (123) 456-7890 registered with Sorenson to begin with, you can tell them you do not want them to be your primary provider anymore and go to another VRS provider of your choice and still use (123) 456-7890. If Sorenson makes any threats towards you about switching providers, you can very easily notify the FCC and the FCC will likely warn or take disciplinary action against Sorenson.
Now this does not mean that because you choose a primary provider, you are limited to using just that one VRS provider when making calls on VRS. If your primary VRS provider is busy, you can easily dial another VRS provider. What this numbering policy does is that if you need to call 911, it will automatically go to that VRS provider that you selected that will contact the emergency center and they will have your immediate address to be able to react accordingly. Now that is a reason that I would support one number per IP address, only because it increases our own safety when it comes to emergency needs.
Having that number registered with a primary provider also means, I would imagine with most providers, is that if a hearing person called that number, it will automatically go to that primary VRS provider that you have freely chosen. It does not matter what VP you use, if you get a Sorenson VP100 or VP200, you are NOT stuck with Sorenson VRS and you can choose any VRS provider of your choice to be your primary provider. The primary provider that you want used when you call 911 and when a hearing person calls you.
Outside of that, again, even if you have selected a primary VRS provider, you can still use any other VRS service if you want to. That being the case, I thought I saw a flying pig cuz I never thought I would ever see myself agreeing with Sorenson on a further clarification cuz this should be clarified further to make sure. What I totally like about this is that it also means that you can take your same phone number to any VRS provider of your choice and not have to get a different phone number if you choose a different provider…..this totally rocks!!!!!!! You just have to let your past primary provider know that they are no longer your primary VRS provider and you can take that same number to the VRS provider of your choice.
One thing tho, that deaf VRS user would need to become familiar with is the practice of telephone number slamming which frequently occurs in the hearing world where people had their telephone numbers switched over to a different carrier without being fully aware of it.
I would freely welcome your take or opinions on this to see if this was the same impression you got when reading the petition or did you see it differently?
It shouldn’t be any **difference** because hearing customers can have more than one phone number with just one IP address — for example, Vonage, a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. In the other word, deaf customers can have more than just one phone number with one IP address. Sorenson’s behavior is unacceptable.
such misleading. its one vp one person. some people hoard in 4-5 vps. theres a word , interoperability, and we cleared that out already. your perception of the petition as limiting one provider to one geog zone is humorous.
Good discussions here folks. A quick response to a few things here.
Don Lee and Cousin Vinny: You and others can make your views known by going to the FCC Electronic Comment form at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and type the number 03-123 under 1. Proceeding. Complete all other required information boxes. Scroll down to the section for typing your comments.
Valhallian: Your premise is generally correct but somewhat unrelated to the petition which is proposing that there be only one provider per geographical area or IP address. Hearing people can and do have multiple voice providers (VoIP) within the same geographical area or IP address. That is the crux of the issue here. What are your views on this?
Cardigan: Please refer to the petition. On Page 6, it proposes that the Commission “permit only one default provider per geographic location,” and repeats that phrasing at the conclusion (last paragraph). What are your views on the petition’s proposal for the Commission to “permit only one default provider per geographic location?”
Ken, considering I’m not an expert with Ip addresses, but if these people had several numbers with one IP address, are they still able to dial 911 and the 911 dispatcher automatically knows what their address is? I would imagine the answer would be yes, because that call goes directly to the local 911 center?
Now with VRS, dialing 911 would not be a local call going directly to the nearest 911 dispatcher, as it would have to go to one VRS center, which is likely in another state, and you would have to designate which VRS provider you want it to go to when you dial 911. The problem with all VRS provider having your number is that you might end up getting a lowly qualified interpreter and its a VRS provider that you do not like.
I would imagine that you would want to make sure this would go to where you know that has highly qualified interpreters as opposed to lowly qualified interpreters? In order to do that, you have to designate a VRS provider.
The other thing about this, is when you give a hearing person your phone number, like your boss for example, and your boss wants to call you, (they simply dial your number without having to look for the VRS phone number and it automatically goes to the VRS provider while calling you) wouldn’t you want to ensure that it also goes to where you are ensured of highly qualified interpreters as well? that would also require selecting a VRS provider of your choice as well.
Now if deaf people wanted more than one number, then it should be for valid reasons, such as a home number and a business number, but if they had 4 or 5 VPs, then they should all be accessible to the same number as opposed to having to do different numbers for each VP ya know?
Now Ken, overall in general, I am totally with you with Sorenson’s previous and current behaviors being unacceptable. Just wish more deaf people would realize this too.
Cardigan, just the same way a person could have 4 or 5 phones in a house, they are also all usually under the same phone number, deaf people should also have the right to have 4 or 5 vps all accessed to one phone number as well. Its usually under one carrier, however you have that choice of the carrier, just the same thing with VRS providers. You would only be stuck with the VRS provider of your choice when it comes to calling 911 or hearing people calling you via VRS. If you later decide you do not like your chosen VRS provider, you can always change it, just the same way that hearing people do with carriers, and its my understanding that they are able to keep the same number if they are still in the same location. Just cannot keep the same number if you move to a different house.
However, I imagine that could be done with VPs where you can take the same number wherever you go, as they do not implement the same infrastructure that wireline companies do that requires the usage of central offices, which requires changing numbers if one moved to a different location.
But when you start the VRS call at your end, you still have your choice of VRS providers. At least that was how I saw this.
Kelby, I am not entirely familiar with how VoIP works, but if hearing people can access more than one VoIP provider using the same IP address then deaf people should too. My question is are these hearing people using different devices for different numbers? or are they able to access several numbers using one device?
This is just me, but I am not a big fan of having several different numbers, if I were to have more than one, then it would likely be just two, one for “home” and one for “business” But if you look at my previos comment regarding 911, we, as deaf people, would not get to the nearest 911 dispatcher if we dialed 911, unlike the hearing person would with VoIP. It would actually go to our VRS provider of our choice and I would much rather be ensured of knowing that I would get a highly qualified interpreter in the event that I needed to call 911. I dont want to dial 911 and get some random VRS provider, which would occur if we did not choose our primary VRS provider.
the same also applies when hearing people call me, especially in business, I want to be ensured of highly qualified interpreters and the only way to do that is to make sure my number is registered with the VRS provider of my choice. Now if I wanted to call someone and got a busy VRS signal, I could very easily use another VRS provider, even if they are not my primary VRS provider.
The reason I want this clarification and would hope and pray that the FCC would agree with my assessment, suppose if I had a VP200 (which i’ll never obtain a sorenson vp due to what I perceive to be unethical behavior on their part) but suppose I had one and i had a number with it, and I wanted to take that number to a different VRS provider, its my understanding that they would not allow me to do so, and I hope and pray that the FCC would clarify that they are not allowed to prevent me from taking that number elsewhere. I, for one, abhor the idea of having to get another number and then notifying everyone of my new number, I want to be able to take it with me wherever I go and whichever VRS provider I choose. I also want to be able to use it on more than one VP so I could have a VP in different parts of my home, just the same way that a hearing person has telephones in different parts of their homes.
ip’s are ‘geographical locations’ too. theyre free to change providers as they choose. its only ‘one’ they can be hooked up to a particular geographical location at a given time.
I think we should be able to have any provider. I have ojo and VP setup and I can chat with my friends on both the same time. Its like having a 3 way calling that hearing people have.
Valhallian, yes, they can dial 9-1-1 from any of VoIP equipment as long as they have their account updated with physical address of location where they use their VoIP equipment. Same concept for each videophones. One videophone equals VoIP equipment with video capability. Simple.
If one took VoIP/Videophone equipment from Los Angeles address to New York and did not update the account with new physical location (New York). They dials 9-1-1…guess what? They’ll be dispatched to that address in Los Angeles. Even though they’re in New York.
Unlike cellular phone where they will be automatically identified by nearest tower in the area. Internet is internet, anywhere in the world with IP address, one must update their account every time they move the equipment. Does this help?
Last year, when FCC announced that we will finally have our own full 10 digit phone number for all relay service users. (Text and video) I really believe we will receive one phone number per household. (We can request more phone number or use our existing mobile phone number) This makes more sense this way because in general people have 1-2 phone numbers. (VoIP and/or cell phone, usually)
We already have 3rd party service that handles phone number system
I decide to read the petition one more time to make sure that I get all important points that it has raised. I sense that Sorenson is frustrated that other VRS providers “tamper” with their IP address. But, Sorenson forgets that an IP address is not owned by them, but a consumer. A consumer has a right to decide who can modify his/her own ip address. So, if a secondary VRS provider explains clearly to a consumer that it will have to modify his/her ip address that’s already set by a “default” provider and the consumer says ok, then the secondary VRS provider has done nothing wrong. What is important is that a second VRS provider must make sure that modifying an IP address will not lose any information that is intended to transmit to a VRS operator for emergency. FCC may should add a requirement that while FCC allows multi providers in a household, FCC should require all providers to clearly explain to a consumer about ringing issues and ask him/her where s/he wants to see callbacks from PSAP. So that way a provider will make sure that a device with callbacks from PSAP is in a room where a consumer wants it to be and the consumer will remember where to expect a callback when it comes to an emergency situation. A mobile device would be more convenient because it will ring anywhere in the house if it carries with a consumer. What matters is that a consumer knows which device will respond when it comes to emergency. Again, we need to remind ourselves that an IP address is our “property” so that a company cannot ask FCC to make our IP address their property. All they have to do is to ask for our permission.
To those of you who asked what you can do…another option for you to take action on your views, whatever they may be, is to share your views with organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) at http://www.nad.org/forms/contact-nad and TDI at tdiexdir@aol.com. Those reputable organizations are committed to fighting for the civil rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
Last year, when FCC announced that we will finally have our own full 10 digit phone number for all relay service users. (Text and video) I really believe we will receive one phone number per household. (We can request more phone number or use our existing mobile phone number) This makes more sense this way because in general people have 1-2 phone numbers. (VoIP and/or cell phone, usually)
We already have 3rd party service that handles phone number system. It would be nice if we can expand like one master username and password through 3rd party service and connect to any relay service provider of our choice. (Similar to Google Voice concept)
But instead we get ten digit phone number for each videophone equipment, (except in some case) each for Instant Messenger (AIM, GTalk, Yahoo, etc.) and each for online relay service, etc. (browser-based or mobile-based) I have like over 10 phone numbers already. It’s silly.
From what I understand that this technology is not possible at this time; however if we find a solution for one phone number for all relay service providers. It will reduce confusion, increase flexibility and no downtime over times. It also will improve secured emergency calls on any phone of your choice.
Greeting! I had thought for a long time and decided to disagree with Sorenson. I have different devices with different providers. I decide to place those different devices in a separate room. What if I get hurt and need to call “911″? Must I crawl to the right room to call the call for help? No! I have a right to have all providers set up in an each room so I can call whatever provider for emergency! No thanks, Sorenson, you can become “Ma Bell” partner and control all the fundings! Be honest, Sorenson.. You cannot be greedy with all of those fundings… let all providers get all fundings. I took turns to make call so all get funding fairly.
Ken, yes that does help and thanks, however, it also brings up another question, you say “as long as they have their account updated” is this to say that they also have an account with a primary provider? if not, who is their account with?
Valhallian, good question. If you have phone number registered with a VRS provider, you need to make sure your account with that VRS provider is updated. For example, if you have a videophone unit and the phone number from XYZ VRS, you need to make sure your XYZ VRS’s account is updated, by either going online using your username/password or contacting XYZ VRS customer service.
This is very interesting topic. I was puzzled when you bought this up. I think it doesn’t matter if you own these devices to communicate. I mean, hearing people has many different cell phone company, for example, charter for their cable connection to use internet. Their cell phone company could use under ATT. There are no difference if these companies are competiting against each other. Then we should have our deaf companies to put this competition against each other even though some deaf people own two devices, or more. It is okay to have them. If you do not use it, then use other. That is fine. We need to tell FCC that hearing people are taking too much advantage on products out there so we (deaf people) should do the same. I think it is okay to have a lot of providers available. No biggie deal.
I S_T_R_O_N_G_L_Y disagree with Sorenson’s position. For those who have a large homes or multi-level homes, it is rather inconvenient to have to go from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor just to make or receive a call. We have 3 different VP devices, in 2 1/2 different locations in the house, each with different 10-digit numbers. (plus a VOIP connection and it’s number, and 2 BB phones from 2 different service providers. That’s 6 working phone numbers for the 2 adults in this geographic location.)
I do understand the limitation of setting up port forwarding for one IP address to one device for all incoming calls. As things are now, I can call out from any of my VPs to any other VP user or VRS service (typically the default provider on each device), and I have ALMOST no problems whatsoever. But for incoming calls, I have had to set one device’s local IP address as the recipient for the port forwarding or DMZ settings, and that redirects ALL incoming calls, from all 3 VP devices to hat default VP. (with the sole exception of Ojo-to-Ojo calls)
It would be SO nice to be able to either:
A) receive call-backs on the device I call someone from, or;
B) if someone would invent a special VP-router that we would plug all our VP’s into, and when we are called, ALL devices ring until one is answered (and then others are temporarily blocked, but ONLY for the duration of the call).
If someone could come up with a solution to B, then we would be a step closer to true equality with hearing people and their voice phone service. Voice callers can buy ANY combination of off-the-shelf products (up to a certain numerical limit), connect them all regardless of their Telco provider (Verizon, USWest, Voip’s, etc), and when a call comes in. they ALL ring….
The next step, which isn’t really feasible (I could be wrong), is switching video from one device to another much as voice callers can put a phone on the bedroom on hold and pickup/resume in the kitchen, then again transfer to the den…. THAT’s more complicated and I’m not pushing for that.
I DO think it is possible to have that VP-Router (or VP Controller Device) to be set to the service location IP’s DMZ, and then manage the switching/redirection of incoming VP calls and blocking alternate outgoing VP calls if another call is already in session. This device, once available, could then be sold/marketed as a solution to multiple VP users. I would buy it in a heartbeat. (Hear that Marketing and Tech Depts? First guy with a workable solution on the market gets to count in the money, ka-ching! ka-ching!)
(BTW, Kelby – Nice seeing you at the Nat’s game last Fri night!)
My opinion on this is stupid to have one provider in each house.. Think about it.. Since we have MVP, Viable, zvrs anything that are mobility, Sorenson don’t have one. So I feel that Sorenson is trying to be in control and prevent us from having a mobility VP? Sorenson have seen the number on the rise of mobility users. I suggest to veto on that proposal to FCC to have us to have ONE provider in household. Think about what if.. What if the sorenson is not working, and we have back-up VP device, Mobility.. We can take them out to make calls and call to Sorenson and report the VP-200 is not working.. I am sure they didn’t think of that. Someone who made a appeal to FCC to have one per household.. IS STUPIDITY…
No offend to you (Kelly) or anyone here who are Purple freaks or anti-Sorenson fans.
Severely limited to one VP provider per household???
It is good because it is to save the landfills from too many e-waste junk devices (Ojo, Z340, Dlink, Viable, MVP, etc) that they don’t really used them often but use them as paperweight or door block.
The majority of the VP users in USA are using VP100/VP200 which is good enough. FYI: If they have technical problems with VP100/VP200, they can always e-mail to Sorenson Tech Support as an alternative communication. That e-mail address is support@sorenson.com or visit their website at http://www.sorensonvrs.com/support/cs.php or use the old fashioned way, TTY/TDD call at 1-866-877-9826.
The point is that one IP address with limited bandwidth can provide highest video quality. Too many VP providers in a single IP addy would not be possible and degrades the video quality.
If an user made a call to a VP provider (A) while another VP provider (B) attempts to call the same user, what would it happened to the user? Crash? Busy line? Ringing up another device? Just to remember that user can’t do multi-tasking on more than one device as much as the user cannot text and drive at the same time or answering more than one call at the same time as the front receptionist do.
I support Sorenson’s proposal due to today’s technology limited availability and of course, human nature (can’t do multi-tasking).
A tech note: Video eats up most of the bandwidth than anything else such as file downloads, VoIPs, etc.
To solve it, add another IP address.
Unfortunately, nearly all of the users have just one IP addy. Unless you are super-rich, please go and buy and own at least 10 IP addresses (that is “One IP for each VP Provider”) to maintain highest video quality. Then, Sorenson’s filing with FCC wouldn’t be necessary.
Any volunteers who can come forward to tell Kelly that you can afford 10 IP addies???
Its absurd if we are only allowed to have ONE provider… We have as much rights as the hearing people do. We are taxpayers.. We are equal employers as hearing people are… Therefore we do have fair & equal access to anything as much as hearing people do..
Confusing?? ha ha.. That vary from person to person, NOT ONLY DEAF… HEARING PEOPLE TOO!!!!… Treat us the same please as if you are treating hearing people!.. Please!
We do have more than one provider… VP200, Ojo, Viable, P3.. We enjoy em!!!!.. Freedom in USA?…
I may be a late reader. But never too late to share my thoughts about this issue.
It is an important issue to be addressed.
In my experience in the past, I have used different providers. Only CSDVRS representative TOLD me that I am entitled to use any provider. The rest of others TOLD me to use their services. Can you guess which provider I use the most? CSDVRS. I chose to use CSDVRS because of how they sold their business.
To be able to use different providers is all about how the business runs. America is full of competitors. I am not easily confused. It is about how one sells his business. Just like how you retain a car salesman.
I am a firm believer that every American is entitled to to receive any provider and is entitled to use it as we see fit. It’s all about how a business sells their business.
I encourage not limit to one provider, ALSO…. You should provide software P3 for Macbook as well. Alot of us deafies use Apple Mac. Our choice, example selling P3 Netbook, we notice all PC. Where is Mac? our perfer or choice or freedom of choice. Same ideas for choice of providers. Hope clear. I heard Viable is almost done develop the software for MAC. Come on Purple.
Many hearing people use one voice line but few telephone devices or wireless phone for rooms in one house therefore They should not limit to deaf own few videophones for fair enough. We have few numbers for OJO, Purple, Viable, Snap VRS, etc that’s good for us purpose search better techinal or in cases. Don’t limit to deaf and Get out who made limit.
Freedom!
Frankly, I do not know how to respond to this except to say that if deaf people want multiple videophones so therefore they should get a home network which will separate each IP addresses to each video phones that we do have here at home and it does not cost very much because when we got caught with having too many video phones here at home from the Earthlink ISP Providers and we were told we can not do that because it will break down their technology system then we moved to a different ISP provider and got a home network so far so good and in a perfect working condition.
We have 2 MVPs, one Sorenson, 3 computers and one IPOD …
I rather pay at least something small instead of getting everything for FREE!
This is considered anticompetive practice similiar what you seen the charge you find with Microsoft experience with antitrust case in Europe. We should never allow one business take advantage zoning rights when digital technology permit us to have have choice. In the past technology, it ususally very costly due to telephone switchboard technology. If we are pro growth business with resonable regulation to allow everyone a fair chance to innovate a new technology through competition, we must encourage giving customer more freedom of choices. Patrick Mccubbin
The law should protect our american rights. this is your house and there is no reason for any company and gvt or anybody tell you what not to buy or not to have any thing in your home. Come ON THIS is America USA YOU ARE BORN IN THIS COUNTRY TO CHOOSE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN YOUR OWN HOME. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE GOVT TO DECIDE WHICH MONEY GOES YOU HAD TO GO IT IS UP TO THE CONGRESS TO VOTE AND ASK YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO VOTE YES PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.. THAT ALL IT NEEDS….. EVERYONE ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THIER RIGHTS . IT IS YOUR HOUSE YOU CAN HAVE THOUSAND SERVICE IF YOU NEED BECAUSE YOU ARE A PRIVATE PERSON. NO ONE CAN NOT TAKE IT AWAY . ALL WEE NEED YOUR FEED BACK TO CONGRESS AS FCC WILL FOLLOW OUT RIGHTS….
Many of you have excellent points throughout this whole comment/questions issues related to one provider under one household, antitrust laws, ability to use the device with more than one provider, choosing different provider instead of one, and so forth. That does helps to clarify and to understand something among each other. I, thank you, all for it.
I have questions and hope to get some answers and clarification on the concepts, not related to VRS itself. I am going to illustrate an example along with questions and hope to get some answers regarding to it if possible.
I used to own a 3650 Nokia cell phone model, which is definitely out of date at this point. I do recalled having different providers at different locations and towers. For example, my cell phone provider was under T-mobile. I lived in a small city and had Epstein as my local area to utilize text message to whomever I sent to. Then, I would go over to my sister’s place and would be under Cingular phone company, which is now under AT & T. Also, when I traveled to other place, I would see different companies on my cell phones at different locations. In other words, all of the companies had worked together to make it possible for the cell phone callers to call from anywhere except for places that do not have towers.
There are several questions to this particular concept. While using different providers and locations during my travels throughout USA, how does the funding for those cell phone companies operate? In other words, does T-mobile have an agreement with those companies to channel a certain portion of the monies to each of those companies? How does FCC comes to play with those primary and non-primary cell phone companies? Does FCC provide monetary support for those non-primary cell phone companies?
Since this whole issues of sharing the VRS and TRS fundings, what and how will the funds be distribute to the primary and non-primary VRS/TRS? How will you all share the same general funds from the FCC? I understand that some of the VRS/TRS will support with each other despite of the competition especially we live in capitalist country. Can someone help me to understand better?
I hope I am asking the right questions in regards to VRS/TRS issue. Forgive me. Thank you.
Email This Post
August 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Thanks, Kelby, for bringing this up – this is America! I want to have the freedom of choosing the provider(s) as well as the videophone device. I believe I should not be controlled by any commericial provider to choose. I have my right to choose what I want. I will not be confused because I know which provider and which device to choose. I do not like such scare tactics that we will be confused or may face the issues of not receiving the call from the emergency services provider. Please oppose the petition Sorenson has submitted to the FCC.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:23 am
May I have a link to the petition that was filed to FCC? I want to read this petition first before I can make a comment. I do not want to be treated differently and don’t want to be limited to one provider. Confused is the poorest excuse that I ever had heard!
August 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Again, if hear people have more than one phone and more than one phone number per household, then deafing people should have the same.
Since Sorenson is the only manufacturer of videophones using obsolete H.323 technology that require configurations of routers and the only company that owns ALL videophones (VP100/200) that are being loaned only to people with hear disabilities, I consider their filing as an effort to protect their investments on obsolete videophones at the expense of consumers.
This filing should be filed in the circular file!
August 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Amy, there is a link to the petition immediately below the video. Check it out.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Hi Kelby,
I feel that that petition is unreasonable because we shouldn’t be treated differently. In my house, I have two wireless providers for cellphones and internet – ATT and Sprint – and I don’t see why there must be one provider. I don’t think that having many providers is an safety issue and if it’s the case, how can this argument be refuted: if one provider’s operating system or product is down and there’s no other provider to contact for emergency? It makes sense to have several providers just in case one provider is down and it’s for safety reasons.
Hope my comments help.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Kelby,
I just watched your video about one company limiting to one provider per location. I strongly disagree with that. I have telephone services with Comcast and Skype for my children (they are hearing). I think that this is a petition that the company have made just to force us to choose one so they can get all the funds from the FCC. I use two different providers here at home because their services satisfy my needs with the VP in different scenarios.
I hope this opinion will help you.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Hi, Kelby…..
Every customer has every right to choose any VRS provider as long as they can have more than one VP in their homes just like the hearing people do such as more than one VoIP which could be for business, residence and even teenagers who may want their own phones with different phone numbers, cellphones, so on. Deaf customers should have their own choices as the hearing customers. Deaf people do have their own home business, residence and even their teenagers who want their own phones and phone numbers assigned to their phones.
If FCC demands that we’re limited to one provider and one phone number, what should we do about TDD? Do we throw it away? No…some want to keep TDD in any case of emergency.
Misha
August 24th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
With the confusing language in the Sorenson petition, I wondered if the FCC would understand its implications for the deaf community fully. Sorenson, being the biggest provider, would probably be given the most weight.
If hearing people can have a landline phone, a fax machine, a cell phone and a PDA all with different numbers, so should deaf people.
However, Sorenson seems to be saying that different providers are giving different numbers but all are going to ring on the same hardware, their vp100 and vp200? Is this what they are objecting to?
Sorenson is also saying that competitors installing hardware (such as routers and wireless systems) for their equipment are converting Sorenson equipment to their services.
That would be a violation of the first principle: that we have a choice of providers per piece of equipment.
Sorenson is also saying that a single IP address should have only one provider and hints that allowing a second provider of video interpreting would disable options on their equipment. I would like more specific information on both of these allegations.
Uncertainty and controversy among the VP providers and VRS services is costing me money. I am keeping a landline, a fax, two IP numbers, two handhelds, two VPs and a collection of several different numbers, while waiting for better information so that my household can cut down on the unnecessary stuff. Soon as I know what is reliable and a best fit, I’m printing up new cards for my business and going with that.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Kelby,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The petition submitted by Sorenson is very disconcerting. It supersedes our rights as a consumer to choose from any providers, especially with the products that were purchased.
The argument presented in the petition is frivolous. Is there any method for consumers to submit their concerns to FCC regarding the petition? If so, could you please post the link?
August 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
After I read the petition, I understand Sorenson’s interpretation of FCC’s rule, but I do not like the idea that if a consumer has only one IP address, then that address can be only used by one VRS provider. I understand that one IP address is set up to be routed to an emergency center and that a second VRS provider could change that route. This is where Sorenson petitions, but my question is how we resolve this issue? A majority of customers have one IP address and they cannot afford to pay other $50.00 a month for 2nd IP address. How do we decide which VRS provider is the default provider for one IP address? This could cause a SERIOUS problem if we decide which VRS provider is the default provider. I do not support the idea of one VRS provider, but we do need to address the problem I stated above. Another question – if we have a VP 200 device and MVP but both use the same IP address, will my 911 call automatically send my location information regardless of devices I use? If this is possible, then Sorenson’s argument on public safety has no merits.
This petition is interesting!
August 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Greetings Kelly, would you please provide the link in reference to the petition. I just spoke to Sorenson VRS Tech who promised me that Sorenson Communications is currently working with all the appropriate legal agencies to eliminate this fraudulent activity. Now the afterschock, I wonder if I’m being confused or misguided? Comments/Questions are welcome.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
All, appreciate all those comments and feedback. Keep them coming. Your views and stories are helpful in helping us better understand this issue. A reminder for those of you who want more information, you can read the original filing.
In response to specific questions:
John: the device will communicate with the provider the caller’s location (assuming the caller has registered its geographical address). One way to improve chances of that happening is to ensure that Caller ID is not hidden. See http://www.purple.us/blog/2009/08/caller-id/ for more information. Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with you that people should not be required to pay for a second IP address.
Plumie and Dazed: I agree with you that people should read the filing themselves. That is why I included a link to the document immediately below the the video. What do you think of their arguments that there should be one provider per geographical location?
Margie: You and others can make your views known by going to the FCC Electronic Comment form at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and type the number 03-123 under “1. Proceeding.” Complete all other required information boxes. Scroll down to the section for typing your comments.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Kelby, thank you for your response.
I saw your blog on caller ID issue and I have a comment/question for you. I agree that it’s helpful to have Caller ID on all ITRS devices so that way consumers know where a call comes from. Since a VP 200 device has a geographical information for emergency purposes, should it be allowed to be transmitted to a VRS operator if a consumer uses another VRS provider? I could argue that a VP 200 device should not be designed to prevent consumers to use other VRS providers and share their geographical information. If FCC has a rule that a VP 200 device cannot ban consumers from adding VRS providers to its contact list, then that device cannot be designed to prevent consumers to share its geographical information if they do not use the default provider. So, the design of that device may endanger the safety of deaf consumers. I am trying to think of other non-VRS devices that must follow design specifications in order to allow companies to use them to provide services, but I can’t think of one at this moment.
August 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I disagree with this “one provider per household” rule. Should that rule be enforced, I would choose ConvoRelay or Viable! This haggling from hearing people taking advantage of the Deaf people needs have gone far enough and needs to stop. The one reason I disagree with this rule is mainly because whenever I call a VRS to make a call, sometimes I have to wait a long, looooong time for an interpreter. This is not accessible if we are stuck with one provider who isn’t taking calls fast enough!! This is not acceptable if we Deaf have to wait to make a call when hearing people can call immediately. If I had to wait for a video interpreter, I would hang up and switch to another VRS and see if they can take my call faster. Most of the time it worked! Another reason I disagree with the “one provider per household” rule, it is the quality of video interpreters. When I need to make quick calls, I would use Sorenson because of the quality of interpreting. If I need to call the bank or do legal kinds of VRS calls, I would pick Z or Purple. But because of politics, the lack of Deaf roles in admin positions and the lack of respect for Deaf within the VRS companies, I am seriously considering switching to using both ConvoRelay and Viable for good to support Deaf-run business. It is all about being a Deaf responsible consumer!
Should FCC approve this petition and require one VRS per household, then feel it would be fair in return for the Deaf consumers to demand FCC to make ALL VRS companies to follow the rule their interpreters *MUST* be RID-certified NIC Advanced!
August 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
First of all, I still DO NOT have a videophone so far or never have it. *sigh* (please read the whole posting, thanks).
I notice that too many deaf people have multiple videophones from various VRS companies
and never used some of them. Why don’t I have the videophone from some deaf individual or loan it to me for temporary use. My understanding is the current policy among the VRS companies ban that kind of practice for any VRS customer to loan the VP device to someone deaf, who truly needs it pretty much.
AFTER reading the Sorenson’s petition to the FCC (Thanks to Amy Cohen Efron for pointing out about any enclosed link after Mr. Brick notifed about the link below the video – kinda overlooked the link in the first place).
I must say that the Sorenson VRS company is attempting to engage in the monoplistic practice to squash other VRS competitors as a clear violation of the anti-trust federal law
with this petition in sleath agenda of pushing other VRS competitors out of the way.
Some commentators make a good point about another household member’s preference of company provider (cable, online) while the head of household member use the current service.
For example, the housemates or household have their own seperate direct ISP services for personal and business communication purpose, then have their needs for seperate IOPA lines, etc.
I though that the VRS services discourage the VRS users from using the VP call for an emergency call. I was really gotten confused.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
August 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
With no question, I oppose the petition that creates a monopoly or anything less/different from American as well as Hearing. In other words, if a hearing is not limited to 1 in his house need, why not us? Morever, every Deaf has a human right to choose his taste, why us stick with a single taste under same house?
My opinion is here. And then what? Advise us on next step to order FCC NOT to recognize the petition.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Hi,
I am going to share this issue with DVTV subscribers this evening and I’d be interested in finding out what they think of this. My screenname at DVTV is jpviews.
Thank you, Kelby, for bringing this up.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I disagree with limiting deaf people to one VRS provider. Where is the support for deaf community? I mean, we, deaf people, understood the feeling of having limiting ourselves by hearing society such as lack of job opportunities, equal communication access, etc, etc. We need to break barriers of limit to deaf people. We have VRS that broke our communication barrier but why do we need a greedy VRS to limit us to one provider? We all know that Sorenson is big “octopus” company but we should give other VRS companies a chance to grow. Don’t we all love competition among companies which one of them finally develop a better product than other. I have not seen Sorenson make new products since VP200 and they have not upgrade to Envision SL program since for more than five years. I saw Viable make new ones, Purple make new ones, SnapVRS make new ones…what is Sorenson doing? Collecting money and do nothing to make new changes.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Relay interoperability should be denied for persons who got their videophones for free. Teach them a lesson to pay up.
Relay interoperability should be granted for persons who paid for their videophones. Reward them for being empowered.
I don’t care if this means additional workers to ensure databases recognize the above considerations. Where’s the MVP?
August 24th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Additionally, the FCC should list relay providers in violation of speed of answering protocols. If Sorenson is found to be violating standards related to speed of answering then people who received their videophones for free can change their default provider from Sorenson to any other strictly under compliance with speed of answering.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Just curious; can laypeople comment on this Sorenson petition with the FCC? (i.e., similar to a rulemaking process where public comments are invited, etc.)
If the FCC grants this petition, videophone equipment innovation could be stifled. OTOH, the Sorenson dominance in the videophone market could actually shrink as there are superior alternatives to the aging VP-100/200 line. Deaf consumers would switch to these alternatives in order to comply with the petition. Reminds me of the quote, “Don’t ask for what you wish for; you might as well as get it!” Or something like that.
Regardless, the FCC should view this petition in the prism of consumer choice, and tailor their decision on the Sorenson petition accordingly.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
With me being an anti-Sorenson guy for years because of their questionable practices in the past and still continues, I was ready to jump on the bandwagon and give them a bashing once again. However, I knew I should read the petition first before blindly jumping onto another bandwagon. This words are my own and are my thoughts only and do not expect you to automatically assume that it is accurate but this is how I see it for myself.
Now I am no legal expert, and I only quickly skimmed through the petition due to time limitations on my part. What I’d like is a further clarification on this. Cuz from what I saw here, it is basically saying one “telephone number” per household (more specifically per IP address) and I can understand that cuz even before the internet came around, if you wanted to have two telephone numbers, you were required to have two separate telephone lines. I would imagine the same should apply here when it comes to IP addresses.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.
Now this is not to say that you are absolutely stuck with the provider that gave you the VP. For example, if you have the Sorenson VP100 or VP200 and you do not want them to become your primary provider, you can simply tell them that you don’t want them as your primary provider and that you want another provider, you can have that same telephone number switched over to that other provider of your choice. For example if you had this number (123) 456-7890 registered with Sorenson to begin with, you can tell them you do not want them to be your primary provider anymore and go to another VRS provider of your choice and still use (123) 456-7890. If Sorenson makes any threats towards you about switching providers, you can very easily notify the FCC and the FCC will likely warn or take disciplinary action against Sorenson.
Now this does not mean that because you choose a primary provider, you are limited to using just that one VRS provider when making calls on VRS. If your primary VRS provider is busy, you can easily dial another VRS provider. What this numbering policy does is that if you need to call 911, it will automatically go to that VRS provider that you selected that will contact the emergency center and they will have your immediate address to be able to react accordingly. Now that is a reason that I would support one number per IP address, only because it increases our own safety when it comes to emergency needs.
Having that number registered with a primary provider also means, I would imagine with most providers, is that if a hearing person called that number, it will automatically go to that primary VRS provider that you have freely chosen. It does not matter what VP you use, if you get a Sorenson VP100 or VP200, you are NOT stuck with Sorenson VRS and you can choose any VRS provider of your choice to be your primary provider. The primary provider that you want used when you call 911 and when a hearing person calls you.
Outside of that, again, even if you have selected a primary VRS provider, you can still use any other VRS service if you want to. That being the case, I thought I saw a flying pig
cuz I never thought I would ever see myself agreeing with Sorenson on a further clarification cuz this should be clarified further to make sure. What I totally like about this is that it also means that you can take your same phone number to any VRS provider of your choice and not have to get a different phone number if you choose a different provider…..this totally rocks!!!!!!! You just have to let your past primary provider know that they are no longer your primary VRS provider and you can take that same number to the VRS provider of your choice.
One thing tho, that deaf VRS user would need to become familiar with is the practice of telephone number slamming which frequently occurs in the hearing world where people had their telephone numbers switched over to a different carrier without being fully aware of it.
I would freely welcome your take or opinions on this to see if this was the same impression you got when reading the petition or did you see it differently?
August 24th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
It shouldn’t be any **difference** because hearing customers can have more than one phone number with just one IP address — for example, Vonage, a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. In the other word, deaf customers can have more than just one phone number with one IP address. Sorenson’s behavior is unacceptable.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
such misleading. its one vp one person. some people hoard in 4-5 vps. theres a word , interoperability, and we cleared that out already. your perception of the petition as limiting one provider to one geog zone is humorous.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Good discussions here folks. A quick response to a few things here.
Don Lee and Cousin Vinny: You and others can make your views known by going to the FCC Electronic Comment form at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and type the number 03-123 under 1. Proceeding. Complete all other required information boxes. Scroll down to the section for typing your comments.
Valhallian: Your premise is generally correct but somewhat unrelated to the petition which is proposing that there be only one provider per geographical area or IP address. Hearing people can and do have multiple voice providers (VoIP) within the same geographical area or IP address. That is the crux of the issue here. What are your views on this?
Cardigan: Please refer to the petition. On Page 6, it proposes that the Commission “permit only one default provider per geographic location,” and repeats that phrasing at the conclusion (last paragraph). What are your views on the petition’s proposal for the Commission to “permit only one default provider per geographic location?”
August 25th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Ken, considering I’m not an expert with Ip addresses, but if these people had several numbers with one IP address, are they still able to dial 911 and the 911 dispatcher automatically knows what their address is? I would imagine the answer would be yes, because that call goes directly to the local 911 center?
Now with VRS, dialing 911 would not be a local call going directly to the nearest 911 dispatcher, as it would have to go to one VRS center, which is likely in another state, and you would have to designate which VRS provider you want it to go to when you dial 911. The problem with all VRS provider having your number is that you might end up getting a lowly qualified interpreter and its a VRS provider that you do not like.
I would imagine that you would want to make sure this would go to where you know that has highly qualified interpreters as opposed to lowly qualified interpreters? In order to do that, you have to designate a VRS provider.
The other thing about this, is when you give a hearing person your phone number, like your boss for example, and your boss wants to call you, (they simply dial your number without having to look for the VRS phone number and it automatically goes to the VRS provider while calling you) wouldn’t you want to ensure that it also goes to where you are ensured of highly qualified interpreters as well? that would also require selecting a VRS provider of your choice as well.
Now if deaf people wanted more than one number, then it should be for valid reasons, such as a home number and a business number, but if they had 4 or 5 VPs, then they should all be accessible to the same number as opposed to having to do different numbers for each VP ya know?
Now Ken, overall in general, I am totally with you with Sorenson’s previous and current behaviors being unacceptable. Just wish more deaf people would realize this too.
Cardigan, just the same way a person could have 4 or 5 phones in a house, they are also all usually under the same phone number, deaf people should also have the right to have 4 or 5 vps all accessed to one phone number as well. Its usually under one carrier, however you have that choice of the carrier, just the same thing with VRS providers. You would only be stuck with the VRS provider of your choice when it comes to calling 911 or hearing people calling you via VRS. If you later decide you do not like your chosen VRS provider, you can always change it, just the same way that hearing people do with carriers, and its my understanding that they are able to keep the same number if they are still in the same location. Just cannot keep the same number if you move to a different house.
However, I imagine that could be done with VPs where you can take the same number wherever you go, as they do not implement the same infrastructure that wireline companies do that requires the usage of central offices, which requires changing numbers if one moved to a different location.
But when you start the VRS call at your end, you still have your choice of VRS providers. At least that was how I saw this.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Kelby, I am not entirely familiar with how VoIP works, but if hearing people can access more than one VoIP provider using the same IP address then deaf people should too. My question is are these hearing people using different devices for different numbers? or are they able to access several numbers using one device?
This is just me, but I am not a big fan of having several different numbers, if I were to have more than one, then it would likely be just two, one for “home” and one for “business” But if you look at my previos comment regarding 911, we, as deaf people, would not get to the nearest 911 dispatcher if we dialed 911, unlike the hearing person would with VoIP. It would actually go to our VRS provider of our choice and I would much rather be ensured of knowing that I would get a highly qualified interpreter in the event that I needed to call 911. I dont want to dial 911 and get some random VRS provider, which would occur if we did not choose our primary VRS provider.
the same also applies when hearing people call me, especially in business, I want to be ensured of highly qualified interpreters and the only way to do that is to make sure my number is registered with the VRS provider of my choice. Now if I wanted to call someone and got a busy VRS signal, I could very easily use another VRS provider, even if they are not my primary VRS provider.
The reason I want this clarification and would hope and pray that the FCC would agree with my assessment, suppose if I had a VP200 (which i’ll never obtain a sorenson vp due to what I perceive to be unethical behavior on their part) but suppose I had one and i had a number with it, and I wanted to take that number to a different VRS provider, its my understanding that they would not allow me to do so, and I hope and pray that the FCC would clarify that they are not allowed to prevent me from taking that number elsewhere. I, for one, abhor the idea of having to get another number and then notifying everyone of my new number, I want to be able to take it with me wherever I go and whichever VRS provider I choose. I also want to be able to use it on more than one VP so I could have a VP in different parts of my home, just the same way that a hearing person has telephones in different parts of their homes.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:41 am
ip’s are ‘geographical locations’ too. theyre free to change providers as they choose. its only ‘one’ they can be hooked up to a particular geographical location at a given time.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I think we should be able to have any provider. I have ojo and VP setup and I can chat with my friends on both the same time. Its like having a 3 way calling that hearing people have.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Valhallian, yes, they can dial 9-1-1 from any of VoIP equipment as long as they have their account updated with physical address of location where they use their VoIP equipment. Same concept for each videophones. One videophone equals VoIP equipment with video capability. Simple.
If one took VoIP/Videophone equipment from Los Angeles address to New York and did not update the account with new physical location (New York). They dials 9-1-1…guess what? They’ll be dispatched to that address in Los Angeles. Even though they’re in New York.
Unlike cellular phone where they will be automatically identified by nearest tower in the area. Internet is internet, anywhere in the world with IP address, one must update their account every time they move the equipment. Does this help?
August 25th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Kelby,
Last year, when FCC announced that we will finally have our own full 10 digit phone number for all relay service users. (Text and video) I really believe we will receive one phone number per household. (We can request more phone number or use our existing mobile phone number) This makes more sense this way because in general people have 1-2 phone numbers. (VoIP and/or cell phone, usually)
We already have 3rd party service that handles phone number system
August 25th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I decide to read the petition one more time to make sure that I get all important points that it has raised. I sense that Sorenson is frustrated that other VRS providers “tamper” with their IP address. But, Sorenson forgets that an IP address is not owned by them, but a consumer. A consumer has a right to decide who can modify his/her own ip address. So, if a secondary VRS provider explains clearly to a consumer that it will have to modify his/her ip address that’s already set by a “default” provider and the consumer says ok, then the secondary VRS provider has done nothing wrong. What is important is that a second VRS provider must make sure that modifying an IP address will not lose any information that is intended to transmit to a VRS operator for emergency. FCC may should add a requirement that while FCC allows multi providers in a household, FCC should require all providers to clearly explain to a consumer about ringing issues and ask him/her where s/he wants to see callbacks from PSAP. So that way a provider will make sure that a device with callbacks from PSAP is in a room where a consumer wants it to be and the consumer will remember where to expect a callback when it comes to an emergency situation. A mobile device would be more convenient because it will ring anywhere in the house if it carries with a consumer. What matters is that a consumer knows which device will respond when it comes to emergency. Again, we need to remind ourselves that an IP address is our “property” so that a company cannot ask FCC to make our IP address their property. All they have to do is to ask for our permission.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
To those of you who asked what you can do…another option for you to take action on your views, whatever they may be, is to share your views with organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) at http://www.nad.org/forms/contact-nad and TDI at tdiexdir@aol.com. Those reputable organizations are committed to fighting for the civil rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Kelby,
Last year, when FCC announced that we will finally have our own full 10 digit phone number for all relay service users. (Text and video) I really believe we will receive one phone number per household. (We can request more phone number or use our existing mobile phone number) This makes more sense this way because in general people have 1-2 phone numbers. (VoIP and/or cell phone, usually)
We already have 3rd party service that handles phone number system. It would be nice if we can expand like one master username and password through 3rd party service and connect to any relay service provider of our choice. (Similar to Google Voice concept)
But instead we get ten digit phone number for each videophone equipment, (except in some case) each for Instant Messenger (AIM, GTalk, Yahoo, etc.) and each for online relay service, etc. (browser-based or mobile-based) I have like over 10 phone numbers already. It’s silly.
From what I understand that this technology is not possible at this time; however if we find a solution for one phone number for all relay service providers. It will reduce confusion, increase flexibility and no downtime over times. It also will improve secured emergency calls on any phone of your choice.
What do you think?
August 25th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Simply, we should have has many providers as hearing people. Once we are treated less, it’s the gateway to weaken the ADA laws.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Greeting! I had thought for a long time and decided to disagree with Sorenson. I have different devices with different providers. I decide to place those different devices in a separate room. What if I get hurt and need to call “911″? Must I crawl to the right room to call the call for help? No! I have a right to have all providers set up in an each room so I can call whatever provider for emergency! No thanks, Sorenson, you can become “Ma Bell” partner and control all the fundings! Be honest, Sorenson.. You cannot be greedy with all of those fundings… let all providers get all fundings. I took turns to make call so all get funding fairly.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Ken, yes that does help and thanks, however, it also brings up another question, you say “as long as they have their account updated” is this to say that they also have an account with a primary provider? if not, who is their account with?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Valhallian, good question. If you have phone number registered with a VRS provider, you need to make sure your account with that VRS provider is updated. For example, if you have a videophone unit and the phone number from XYZ VRS, you need to make sure your XYZ VRS’s account is updated, by either going online using your username/password or contacting XYZ VRS customer service.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
This is very interesting topic. I was puzzled when you bought this up. I think it doesn’t matter if you own these devices to communicate. I mean, hearing people has many different cell phone company, for example, charter for their cable connection to use internet. Their cell phone company could use under ATT. There are no difference if these companies are competiting against each other. Then we should have our deaf companies to put this competition against each other even though some deaf people own two devices, or more. It is okay to have them. If you do not use it, then use other. That is fine. We need to tell FCC that hearing people are taking too much advantage on products out there so we (deaf people) should do the same. I think it is okay to have a lot of providers available. No biggie deal.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I S_T_R_O_N_G_L_Y disagree with Sorenson’s position. For those who have a large homes or multi-level homes, it is rather inconvenient to have to go from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor just to make or receive a call. We have 3 different VP devices, in 2 1/2 different locations in the house, each with different 10-digit numbers. (plus a VOIP connection and it’s number, and 2 BB phones from 2 different service providers. That’s 6 working phone numbers for the 2 adults in this geographic location.)
I do understand the limitation of setting up port forwarding for one IP address to one device for all incoming calls. As things are now, I can call out from any of my VPs to any other VP user or VRS service (typically the default provider on each device), and I have ALMOST no problems whatsoever. But for incoming calls, I have had to set one device’s local IP address as the recipient for the port forwarding or DMZ settings, and that redirects ALL incoming calls, from all 3 VP devices to hat default VP. (with the sole exception of Ojo-to-Ojo calls)
It would be SO nice to be able to either:
A) receive call-backs on the device I call someone from, or;
B) if someone would invent a special VP-router that we would plug all our VP’s into, and when we are called, ALL devices ring until one is answered (and then others are temporarily blocked, but ONLY for the duration of the call).
If someone could come up with a solution to B, then we would be a step closer to true equality with hearing people and their voice phone service. Voice callers can buy ANY combination of off-the-shelf products (up to a certain numerical limit), connect them all regardless of their Telco provider (Verizon, USWest, Voip’s, etc), and when a call comes in. they ALL ring….
The next step, which isn’t really feasible (I could be wrong), is switching video from one device to another much as voice callers can put a phone on the bedroom on hold and pickup/resume in the kitchen, then again transfer to the den…. THAT’s more complicated and I’m not pushing for that.
I DO think it is possible to have that VP-Router (or VP Controller Device) to be set to the service location IP’s DMZ, and then manage the switching/redirection of incoming VP calls and blocking alternate outgoing VP calls if another call is already in session. This device, once available, could then be sold/marketed as a solution to multiple VP users. I would buy it in a heartbeat. (Hear that Marketing and Tech Depts? First guy with a workable solution on the market gets to count in the money, ka-ching! ka-ching!)
(BTW, Kelby – Nice seeing you at the Nat’s game last Fri night!)
August 27th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
(Dang, I didn’t think my posting would get so long!)
August 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Hello,
My opinion on this is stupid to have one provider in each house.. Think about it.. Since we have MVP, Viable, zvrs anything that are mobility, Sorenson don’t have one. So I feel that Sorenson is trying to be in control and prevent us from having a mobility VP? Sorenson have seen the number on the rise of mobility users. I suggest to veto on that proposal to FCC to have us to have ONE provider in household. Think about what if.. What if the sorenson is not working, and we have back-up VP device, Mobility.. We can take them out to make calls and call to Sorenson and report the VP-200 is not working.. I am sure they didn’t think of that. Someone who made a appeal to FCC to have one per household.. IS STUPIDITY…
August 29th, 2009 at 1:43 am
No offend to you (Kelly) or anyone here who are Purple freaks or anti-Sorenson fans.
Severely limited to one VP provider per household???
It is good because it is to save the landfills from too many e-waste junk devices (Ojo, Z340, Dlink, Viable, MVP, etc) that they don’t really used them often but use them as paperweight or door block.
The majority of the VP users in USA are using VP100/VP200 which is good enough. FYI: If they have technical problems with VP100/VP200, they can always e-mail to Sorenson Tech Support as an alternative communication. That e-mail address is support@sorenson.com or visit their website at http://www.sorensonvrs.com/support/cs.php or use the old fashioned way, TTY/TDD call at 1-866-877-9826.
The point is that one IP address with limited bandwidth can provide highest video quality. Too many VP providers in a single IP addy would not be possible and degrades the video quality.
If an user made a call to a VP provider (A) while another VP provider (B) attempts to call the same user, what would it happened to the user? Crash? Busy line? Ringing up another device? Just to remember that user can’t do multi-tasking on more than one device as much as the user cannot text and drive at the same time or answering more than one call at the same time as the front receptionist do.
I support Sorenson’s proposal due to today’s technology limited availability and of course, human nature (can’t do multi-tasking).
A tech note: Video eats up most of the bandwidth than anything else such as file downloads, VoIPs, etc.
To solve it, add another IP address.
Unfortunately, nearly all of the users have just one IP addy. Unless you are super-rich, please go and buy and own at least 10 IP addresses (that is “One IP for each VP Provider”) to maintain highest video quality. Then, Sorenson’s filing with FCC wouldn’t be necessary.
Any volunteers who can come forward to tell Kelly that you can afford 10 IP addies???
August 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Its absurd if we are only allowed to have ONE provider… We have as much rights as the hearing people do. We are taxpayers.. We are equal employers as hearing people are… Therefore we do have fair & equal access to anything as much as hearing people do..
Confusing?? ha ha.. That vary from person to person, NOT ONLY DEAF… HEARING PEOPLE TOO!!!!… Treat us the same please as if you are treating hearing people!.. Please!
We do have more than one provider… VP200, Ojo, Viable, P3.. We enjoy em!!!!.. Freedom in USA?…
August 31st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Kelby,
I may be a late reader. But never too late to share my thoughts about this issue.
It is an important issue to be addressed.
In my experience in the past, I have used different providers. Only CSDVRS representative TOLD me that I am entitled to use any provider. The rest of others TOLD me to use their services. Can you guess which provider I use the most? CSDVRS. I chose to use CSDVRS because of how they sold their business.
To be able to use different providers is all about how the business runs. America is full of competitors. I am not easily confused. It is about how one sells his business. Just like how you retain a car salesman.
I am a firm believer that every American is entitled to to receive any provider and is entitled to use it as we see fit. It’s all about how a business sells their business.
I hope I am making sense here.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I encourage not limit to one provider, ALSO…. You should provide software P3 for Macbook as well. Alot of us deafies use Apple Mac. Our choice, example selling P3 Netbook, we notice all PC. Where is Mac? our perfer or choice or freedom of choice. Same ideas for choice of providers. Hope clear. I heard Viable is almost done develop the software for MAC. Come on Purple.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Many hearing people use one voice line but few telephone devices or wireless phone for rooms in one house therefore They should not limit to deaf own few videophones for fair enough. We have few numbers for OJO, Purple, Viable, Snap VRS, etc that’s good for us purpose search better techinal or in cases. Don’t limit to deaf and Get out who made limit.
Freedom!
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Frankly, I do not know how to respond to this except to say that if deaf people want multiple videophones so therefore they should get a home network which will separate each IP addresses to each video phones that we do have here at home and it does not cost very much because when we got caught with having too many video phones here at home from the Earthlink ISP Providers and we were told we can not do that because it will break down their technology system then we moved to a different ISP provider and got a home network so far so good and in a perfect working condition.
We have 2 MVPs, one Sorenson, 3 computers and one IPOD …
I rather pay at least something small instead of getting everything for FREE!
Hope this helps?
September 4th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
This is considered anticompetive practice similiar what you seen the charge you find with Microsoft experience with antitrust case in Europe. We should never allow one business take advantage zoning rights when digital technology permit us to have have choice. In the past technology, it ususally very costly due to telephone switchboard technology. If we are pro growth business with resonable regulation to allow everyone a fair chance to innovate a new technology through competition, we must encourage giving customer more freedom of choices. Patrick Mccubbin
September 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
The law should protect our american rights. this is your house and there is no reason for any company and gvt or anybody tell you what not to buy or not to have any thing in your home. Come ON THIS is America USA YOU ARE BORN IN THIS COUNTRY TO CHOOSE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN YOUR OWN HOME. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE GOVT TO DECIDE WHICH MONEY GOES YOU HAD TO GO IT IS UP TO THE CONGRESS TO VOTE AND ASK YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO VOTE YES PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.. THAT ALL IT NEEDS….. EVERYONE ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THIER RIGHTS . IT IS YOUR HOUSE YOU CAN HAVE THOUSAND SERVICE IF YOU NEED BECAUSE YOU ARE A PRIVATE PERSON. NO ONE CAN NOT TAKE IT AWAY . ALL WEE NEED YOUR FEED BACK TO CONGRESS AS FCC WILL FOLLOW OUT RIGHTS….
October 27th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Many of you have excellent points throughout this whole comment/questions issues related to one provider under one household, antitrust laws, ability to use the device with more than one provider, choosing different provider instead of one, and so forth. That does helps to clarify and to understand something among each other. I, thank you, all for it.
I have questions and hope to get some answers and clarification on the concepts, not related to VRS itself. I am going to illustrate an example along with questions and hope to get some answers regarding to it if possible.
I used to own a 3650 Nokia cell phone model, which is definitely out of date at this point. I do recalled having different providers at different locations and towers. For example, my cell phone provider was under T-mobile. I lived in a small city and had Epstein as my local area to utilize text message to whomever I sent to. Then, I would go over to my sister’s place and would be under Cingular phone company, which is now under AT & T. Also, when I traveled to other place, I would see different companies on my cell phones at different locations. In other words, all of the companies had worked together to make it possible for the cell phone callers to call from anywhere except for places that do not have towers.
There are several questions to this particular concept. While using different providers and locations during my travels throughout USA, how does the funding for those cell phone companies operate? In other words, does T-mobile have an agreement with those companies to channel a certain portion of the monies to each of those companies? How does FCC comes to play with those primary and non-primary cell phone companies? Does FCC provide monetary support for those non-primary cell phone companies?
Since this whole issues of sharing the VRS and TRS fundings, what and how will the funds be distribute to the primary and non-primary VRS/TRS? How will you all share the same general funds from the FCC? I understand that some of the VRS/TRS will support with each other despite of the competition especially we live in capitalist country. Can someone help me to understand better?
I hope I am asking the right questions in regards to VRS/TRS issue. Forgive me. Thank you.